Hamilton v. State

The trial court did not err in allowing defense counsel to inquire on voir dire whether any of the jurors had been affected by the pretrial publicity on the O. J. Simpson case.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

In May 1983, while Stephen Hynes and his fiancee, Catherine Moore, were cooking on the patio of her apartment, Henry Albert Hamilton and Michael Fortson, armed with pistols, came through bushes onto the patio. After Hynes said his wallet was inside, he and Moore were ordered into the apartment. When Hynes and Moore attempted to flee, Hynes was shot twice and died. Fortson told a witness that he and Hamilton attempted to rob the victims, and that Hamilton had shot Hynes and had unintentionally shot Fortson in the leg. That witness reported them to the police. Both were identified in lineups by Moore. Hamilton was convicted of felony murder in November 1983 and his conviction was affirmed by this Court. Hamilton v. State, 255 Ga. 468 339 SE2d 707 1986. However, in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, his convictions were vacated on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel. Hamilton v. Ford, 969 F2d 1006 11th Cir. 1992. A second trial in September 1994 resulted in conviction for felony murder and two counts of criminal attempt to commit armed robbery.1 This appeal follows.

1. The evidence adduced at trial and summarized above was sufficient to authorize a rational trier of fact to find Hamilton guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crimes of which he was convicted. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560 1979; Taylor v. State, 272 Ga. 744 3 534 SE2d 67 2000. Since an appellate court reviewing a trial court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict applies the “sufficiency of the evidence” test of Jackson v. Virginia, supra, we also affirm the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal. Moore v. State, 273 Ga. 11 1 537 SE2d 334 2000.

Hamilton v. State

The trial court did not err in allowing defense counsel to inquire on voir dire whether any of the jurors had been affected by the pretrial publicity on the O. J. Simpson case.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report